I also want to add for all the fake fans on this board, go watch the highlights, we ALMOST WON THE GAME. We had the ****ing thing in our hands and lost it. Now I'm not saying that's acceptable.

0-5 in the red zone.

3 wide open touchdowns that we missed. Damn!

So close!!!! If Maynard plays this week like he did last week, we woulda won!

Sooooo....

"Let's fire our coach yay fake fans unite!!!"

CalBearz02;841957417 said:

---

Yes, but that wasn't the difference in this game, nor has it been the difference in most games. We lose this game with Maynard no matter who is our coach today. It's not a reason to keep Teddy around obviously, but the outrage over Tedford's coaching flaws are misguided if derived from it is the hope we could have won.

Our QB play was so bad, it required a miserable game by USC just to stay in it for 3 quarters. We protected Maynard the entire first half. If we stuck with the run we simply make it down to the RZ and kick another field goal or two.

---

Tedford's game strategy, especially not playing Bigelow, put us in a big hole. We still kept running Sofele for nothing on first down. The first time we pass on first down? We do so out of an empty backfield. Why not go play action instead? Why telegraph our plays against an aggressive USC defense?

Our play calling puts us into too many third and longs. Maynard did not have a good day throwing the ball, missing some open receivers, but even if he hit those, we still lose this game, it might have been closer, like at OSU, but we would still lose. This SC team is better than OSU, Maynard had a good game last week, we lost. Maynard did not play well this week, but he is not the reason we lost, and not the reason Tedford is 1-10 against SC.

Fresh, despite how poorly Maynard was playing and deciding not to play Bigs in 3 out of 4 quarters, Cal was only down 17-9 deep into the 2nd half against this "vaunted" SC team.
My response, like ducky, boils down to this: Tedford's Bigelow decision today ABSOLUTELY cost Cal a chance to win. Would it have guaranteed a victory? Of course not, but it would have guaranteed that Cal would have had a very realistic chance to win.
When Bigs was in the game, the offense was humming. He ran great, it opened up some good runs by Maynard, and you could see the energy the team had in driving down the field. Besides running it himself, he can be effectively used as a decoy, and the pass rush can't be quite as explosive because they have to honor Bigelow's presence.
This is the only reason I need to show that Tedford cost Cal an OPPORTUNITY to win - if you can't see this, you have my pity.

It's coaching. The buck stops with JT.

Oregon State talent level isn't any better than da Bears, and look what Riley is doing so far: two upsets!

majorursa;841957452 said:

---

Tedford's Bigelow decision today ABSOLUTELY cost Cal a chance to win. Would it have guaranteed a victory? Of course not, but it would have guaranteed that Cal would have had a very realistic chance to win.

---

Tedford, based on his post game comments, deflected responsibility for the use of Bigelow to Ron Gould.

mollydookerbear;841957460 said:

---

Tedford, based on his post game comments, deflected responsibility for the use of Bigelow to Ron Gould.

---

Anyone left JT has not thrown under the bus?

tommie317;841957462 said:

---

Anyone left JT has not thrown under the bus?

---

I still and always will hate tosh, He's an ass$hole and nothing will ever change that. But maybe he's not as stupid as we all originally thought.

philly1121;841957409 said:

---

Freshfunk, I think the subject of this thread is asking for trouble. This is evident in some of the posts we are reading. But just as a basic truth, you simply cannot say that the offense is better with Bigelow on the bench than on the field. I don't see how anyone could possibly think that.

We can argue about Maynard, Tedford and the gameplan, but not having him on the field for fakes, screens, decoys and so forth is indefensible. I cannot see how or why you would argue otherwise.

---

Exactly, there are things a coach can control and things he can't can't. Putting your best players on the field and putting them in a position to make plays is something you can do. Unless a coach does that, any gripping about the players is moot. The coach did not do their $2.5 million job.

If Bigelow was in the game, making big plays in the first, we wouldn't be trying to climb back in it on Maynard's arm. Even if he is just in the game, it opens up other plays. Last week Maynard did well on short drops and roll outs (to the left). Most of the designed roll-outs in this game were to the right.

We had one play with Treggs streaking up the left side wide open, but who designed a play to have a left handed quarterback roll right and then have to throw long down the left sideline? Think about it a little. That is physically impossible. The play should have had Treggs break across the field back into Maynard's throwing (and visual) range. (At least in that case) blaming Maynard for not making a throw that NFL QBs don't make is pointing the finger in the wrong place.

calumnus;841957449 said:

---

Maynard did not play well this week, but he is not the reason we lost, and not the reason Tedford is 1-10 against SC.

---

The starting QB, who was very inaccurate today, missed wide open receivers in scoring position numerous times, and threw 2 INTs and 0 TDs, bears no responsibility for the loss? He is a big reason why we lost today. Not as big a reason as the HC, but still a big reason. Sean Mannion (who is a sophomore and whose PER in 2011 his frosh year was exactly the same as Maynard's--127) and several other conference QBs would have won or kept this game a lot closer today. Last week, he was a good reason why we almost won. Give him credit when he's earned it and blame when he deserves it.

calumnus;841957449 said:

---

Tedford's game strategy, especially not playing Bigelow, put us in a big hole. We still kept running Sofele for nothing on first down. The first time we pass on first down? We do so out of an empty backfield. Why not go play action instead? Why telegraph our plays against an aggressive USC defense?

---

Tedford's running strategy was key in dominating time of possession through three quarters, and that strategy damn well almost worked.

While it is ridiculous to say we "telegraphed" our plays, you are completely misunderstanding what is going on. It's called baiting, and it did work. Tedford called several masterful scoring plays that were not properly executed (bad blocks, overthrows, etc).

This whole thread should be sent to the recycle bin. Tedford called a great game.

You fake fans are like spoiled children. We just finished the hardest part of one of the toughest schedules in the country. At one point today, we had 0 yes zero, and I mean zero healthy tight ends. We've got a solid team that is improving each week and 8 more games that are all winnable, yet all you want to do is fire the coach.

Go back to your dorms at Furd you fake fans.

beeasyed;841957408 said:

---

why the f*ck would it matter if $c didn't play up to potential?? you said talent disparity is a big reason why we lost today, the only thing we had to do is play up to our own potential, or close to it.

instead, you saw what happened today, and numerous other games in the past few years. so why don't we play at the level we are capable of playing? COACHING.

---

Wow dude. Calm down. No need to go agro.

You asked why 'furd was able to win against $C and not us. Well I answered it for you. If you don't like it, fine. No need to have a coronary.

'furd had 4 sacks against $C for a loss of 21 yards.
$C had 7 sacks against us for a loss of 49 yards.
We had 0 sacks against $C. They won.
$C had 0 sacks against 'furd. 'furd won.

Why was $C able to get 7 sacks against us and 0 against 'furd? You think that's all on playcalling or rah-rah emotion?

Are our guys underdeveloped because of our coaches? Sure. Maybe. I'm not arguing against that.

I think you need to take your roid glasses off and see my OP which was asking which decision today you would've made to win the game.

The entire notion of Maynard being on this team, not to mention being the starting QB is unmitigated farce. The young man quit and ran out of bounds for a loss in the game today. Nice leadership from a SR QB eh?

philly1121;841957409 said:

---

Freshfunk, I think the subject of this thread is asking for trouble. This is evident in some of the posts we are reading. But just as a basic truth, you simply cannot say that the offense is better with Bigelow on the bench than on the field. I don't see how anyone could possibly think that.

---

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that putting Biggie in doesn't guarantee a win. It's not even definitive he makes a big difference with this OL.

If I were the RB/HC would I have him in for more plays? Definitely (assuming the guy can pass pro). But it's not a panacea. Like I said, he doesn't play QB, OL, DB, ILB and other areas where we got beat as a team today.

AU_Bears;841957019 said:

---

Jesus, did you see the game? For one, more Bigelow. Two, no more seven f*cking step drops with Maynard.

---

bigelow isnt gonna win us the game by himself SC wouldve keyed in on him just how they used to do Best.Also seven step drops? are u serious? with what line!?!?

No, but having him in the game helps gain more yards rushing, opens up the field for your receivers, and slows down the pass rush...all of those would be helpful, no?

BobbyGBear;841957487 said:

---

Go back to your dorms at Furd you fake fans.

---

What is your definition of a fake fan? Someone who is never critical of the team or the coach?

I'm in my mid 30's. I have never ever missed a single big game in my entire life. The number of home games I have missed in my entire life I could probably count on two hands. Most of the other posters on this board have similar backgrounds. I have bled blue and gold my entire life. I believe I have a right to be critical. Especially when I believe the coaching is incredibly poor. If that makes me a fake fan, then I'd like to know what a real fan looks like.

BobbyGBear;841957487 said:

---

Tedford's running strategy was key in dominating time of possession through three quarters, and that strategy damn well almost worked.

While it is ridiculous to say we "telegraphed" our plays, you are completely misunderstanding what is going on. It's called baiting, and it did work. Tedford called several masterful scoring plays that were not properly executed (bad blocks, overthrows, etc).

This whole thread should be sent to the recycle bin. Tedford called a great game.

You fake fans are like spoiled children. We just finished the hardest part of one of the toughest schedules in the country. At one point today, we had 0 yes zero, and I mean zero healthy tight ends. We've got a solid team that is improving each week and 8 more games that are all winnable, yet all you want to do is fire the coach.

Go back to your dorms at Furd you fake fans.

---

We're in last place in the Pac12 North, tied with Colorado for fewest wins in the conference. If this is worth over $2 million a year, I want to get on that gravy train please. Doesn't matter what could have happened, we've lost to USC more times this decade than all but WSU.....doesn't matter how you rationalize it...

majorursa;841957452 said:

---

Fresh, despite how poorly Maynard was playing and deciding not to play Bigs in 3 out of 4 quarters, Cal was only down 17-9 deep into the 2nd half against this "vaunted" SC team.
My response, like ducky, boils down to this: Tedford's Bigelow decision today ABSOLUTELY cost Cal a chance to win. Would it have guaranteed a victory? Of course not, but it would have guaranteed that Cal would have had a very realistic chance to win.
When Bigs was in the game, the offense was humming. He ran great, it opened up some good runs by Maynard, and you could see the energy the team had in driving down the field. Besides running it himself, he can be effectively used as a decoy, and the pass rush can't be quite as explosive because they have to honor Bigelow's presence.
This is the only reason I need to show that Tedford cost Cal an OPPORTUNITY to win - if you can't see this, you have my pity.

---

I guess there are 2 different ways of looking at it.

Pointwise, the game was within reach. What the points don't say was that we were unable to score a TD and had to settle for FGs every single time.

You can put this on JT, but our redzone->TD conversion percentage sucks. Not just against $C but in general.

Bigs was rolling. I saw it.

Even with a stud/starting RB, we always rotate in the 2nd string after a few downs so they can recover. That's nothing against Biggie but somethign we've always done (eg. Vereen came in for Best all the time to give him a rest). Unfortunately Biggie would get us to the redzone and then someone would come in to sub for him.

After that there were 3 more drives. Biggie didn't come in for any of them. On one of them, Zach was sacked on 1st down already putting us in 2nd and long. On the other 2, we passed on 1st down (trying to attack through the air).

When I look at today's game, what really killed us was our ability to score once in the redzone. We settled for too many FGs (something that's been plaguing us for a while). While Biggie's explosive, unless the guy can remedy this I don't put wins or losses on him.

ducky23;841957511 said:

---

What is your definition of a fake fan? Someone who is never critical of the team or the coach?

I'm in my mid 30's. I have never ever missed a single big game in my entire life. The number of home games I have missed in my entire life I could probably count on two hands. Most of the other posters on this board have similar backgrounds. I have bled blue and gold my entire life. I believe I have a right to be critical. Especially when I believe the coaching is incredibly poor. If that makes me a fake fan, then I'd like to know what a real fan looks like.

---

Critical is ok. These posts calling for Coach to get fired midseason is ridiculous. It's not supportive, it's not constructive, and it's not going to happen. It does absolutely nothing for Cal. It's what a fake fan does.

BobbyGBear;841957487 said:

---

Tedford called several masterful scoring plays that were not properly executed (bad blocks, overthrows, etc).

---

The Head Coach's responsibilities are not limited to "masterful" playcalling. It is the Head Coach's responsibility to masterfully prepare his players, and then to place the best available personnel on the field as much as feasible to properly execute his "masterful" plays into scoring drives.

freshfunk;841957500 said:

---

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that putting Biggie in doesn't guarantee a win. It's not even definitive he makes a big difference with this OL.

If I were the RB/HC would I have him in for more plays? Definitely (assuming the guy can pass pro). But it's not a panacea. Like I said, he doesn't play QB, OL, DB, ILB and other areas where we got beat as a team today.

---

Why is the bar set at 'guaranteeing a win'? Almost nothing anyone could do would guarantee a win, so discounting something because it doesn't guarantee a win is lame and you know it. It is such a false choice to say that any coaching critique must suggest some alternate course that would have guaranteed a win.

Running Bigelow more and using him more as a decoy on play action absolutely would have given Cal a better chance to win. Almost everyone gets this. If Tedford doesn't get it, or does and still doesn't play Bigelow, then it's not good.

Bigelow's runs:
2nd and 7 at USC 35: Bigelow 11 yard run to USC 24 for a 1st down
2nd and 6 at USC 20: Bigelow 8 yard run to USC 12 for a 1st down
1st and 10 at USC 45: Bigelow 8 yard run to USC 37
(next play) 2nd and 2 at USC 37: Bigelow 4 yard run to USC 33 for a 1st down

Earlier you said no Cal back was consistently productive. How is the above not consistently productive given the opportunities that Bigelow had? Only reason it wasn't more consistently productive was Tedford keeping Bigelow on the bench.

I will say that I'm not sure Tedford made any obviously horrible 4th down calls today. The one time he could have chickened out, 4th and 2 at the USC 32, he went for it and made it. Only other debatable one is 4th and 5 at USC 6 in the same drive, but almost every other coach kicks there even though the percentages actually say go for it (mostly because leaving the opponent at the 6 is a huge advantage over kicking off to them).

BobbyGBear;841957526 said:

---

Critical is ok. These posts calling for Coach to get fired midseason is ridiculous. It's not supportive, it's not constructive, and it's not going to happen. It does absolutely nothing for Cal. It's what a fake fan does.

---

Nothin I say, you say, or what Einstein would say on this board would do anything for cal. This board is to vent and to discuss cal sports. Who elected you to tell us what we can and cannot discuss.

I donate to cal, that actually does something for cal. I'm sure you do the same since you are all about real fans doing actual productive things for the university.

Also if you want to call out specific posters for saying something stupid, have at it. But you have a real bad habit of lumping together and thus insulting every single member of this board.

The fumble was under review. There was no need for a challenge.

ducky23;841957511 said:

---

... then I'd like to know what a real fan looks like.

---

why, that'd be uberfan BobbyGBear of course!!! The bestest fan in all the land. Cause the rest of us are all fakes, he's figured us out... Good on ya' mate!

ducky23;841957554 said:

---

Also if you want to call out specific posters for saying something stupid, have at it. But you have a real bad habit of lumping together and thus insulting every single member of this board.

---

In that case, I apologize for calling you a fake fan. Sorry, I'm ****ing pissed right now. I'm pissed about losing, and I'm really pissed that people here fail to see that we have a good team that is getting better each week. I don't mind negative posts but calling for a new coach at this point in time is just f u c k ing stupid.

GrizzledBear;841957561 said:

---

why, that'd be uberfan BobbyGBear of course!!! The bestest fan in all the land. Cause the rest of us are all fakes, he's figured us out... Good on ya' mate!

---

Who cares what I say. Do I need to remind some of you that it is the Cal players themselves that are calling you fake fans? Did you forget that part?

OneKeg;841957548 said:

---

Why is the bar set at 'guaranteeing a win'? Almost nothing anyone could do would guarantee a win, so discounting something because it doesn't guarantee a win is lame and you know it. It is such a false choice to say that any coaching critique must suggest some alternate course that would have guaranteed a win.

Running Bigelow more and using him more as a decoy on play action absolutely would have given Cal a better chance to win. Almost everyone gets this. If Tedford doesn't get it, or does and still doesn't play Bigelow, then it's not good.

Bigelow's runs:
2nd and 7 at USC 35: Bigelow 11 yard run to USC 24 for a 1st down
2nd and 6 at USC 20: Bigelow 8 yard run to USC 12 for a 1st down
1st and 10 at USC 45: Bigelow 8 yard run to USC 37
(next play) 2nd and 2 at USC 37: Bigelow 4 yard run to USC 33 for a 1st down

Earlier you said no Cal back was consistently productive. How is the above not consistently productive given the opportunities that Bigelow had? Only reason it wasn't more consistently productive was Tedford keeping Bigelow on the bench.

I will say that I'm not sure Tedford made any obviously horrible 4th down calls today. The one time he could have chickened out, 4th and 2 at the USC 32, he went for it and made it. Only other debatable one is 4th and 5 at USC 6 in the same drive, but almost every other coach kicks there even though the percentages actually say go for it (mostly because leaving the opponent at the 6 is a huge advantage over kicking off to them).

---

Fair enough. I think you're scrutinizing my words more closely than I'm writing them.

2 series (4 carries) where Biggie produced. Is that "consistent"? Debatable. I'll give it to you though. But I think it's besides the point since RB play is determined by Gould and not JT.

I don't mean "guarantee" so much as "it's so obvious it would've made a huge difference." The follow-up point was that we were getting owned in so many other areas it was ridiculous.

Would we have performed better with Biggie? Maybe. I just don't see it making a big difference in the result of the game (win/loss). I don't think our other backs were particularly bad. It was obvious that their DL was owned our OL and that we couldn't really stop their offense.

BobbyGBear;841957526 said:

---

Critical is ok. These posts calling for Coach to get fired midseason is ridiculous. It's not supportive, it's not constructive, and it's not going to happen. It does absolutely nothing for Cal. It's what a fake fan does.

---

ducky23;841957554 said:

---

Nothin I say, you say, or what Einstein would say on this board would do anything for cal. This board is to vent and to discuss cal sports. Who elected you to tell us what we can and cannot discuss.

I donate to cal, that actually does something for cal. I'm sure you do the same since you are all about real fans doing actual productive things for the university.

Also if you want to call out specific posters for saying something stupid, have at it. But you have a real bad habit of lumping together and thus insulting every single member of this board.

---

Some people have a real authoritarian bent and have assigned themselves the role of board moderator-inquisitors.

Have we ever seen an AD part with an HC when calls for his dimissal were not expressed loudly, often, and during the season? If we were to wait until the end of another bad season (the 5th of the last 6 years), Director Sandy would interpret that silence as a clear sign of satisfaction or indifference, and make up her mind during the season to keep him for YET ANOTHER YEAR. The program most definitely cannot afford that.

I would have run up the score on Southern Miss and lobbied harder for a Rose Bowl berth in 2004.

Recruiting nationally, gaining more support from donors, and retaining/attracting top coaches would have been easier from that point on.

Fast forward to 2012, and guys like Marquise Lee and Devon Kennard might be on the Cal sideline instead.

freshfunk;841957007 said:

---

What would you have done differently?

And make your case for how that would've won us the game.

Catch: You can't switch out our players for players NOT on our current team.

I'm not apologizing for him but I don't think coaching lost us the game. And, frankly, I want to see the obvious things that JT missed that you guys think wouldve won us the game.

---

Yes.

The problem today was that Bigelow was far too often on the Cal sideline...

socaliganbear;841957035 said:

---

One decade, different players, different assistants, different venues, 1 win, 1 constant. JT. That's all I got. Enough for me to not be too happy though. Oh well...

---

Exactly. For anyone who thinks tedfraud is a good coach, the market will tell. If he were available right now, how many head coach positions would he be offered at the D1 level? My guess is only a place like Rice, where other former mediocre Cal coaches go.

You doofus, SO WHAT if he doesn't look good returning kicks? Frankly, I never wanted him there in the first place. Tedford wasted his blueshirt year returning kicks---what a way to recuperate from injury! Are you serious.....he shouldn't get more carries because you don't like the way he returns kickoffs??? That takes the cake for one of the dumbest arguments I have heard! Congratulations! I seriously can't believe anyone would make a comment like that after watching last week's game. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised.....I've read many of your other posts.

Nice. Some people are so satisfied with mediocrity, that they will do anything to defend it, even when the mediocrity turns into plain awful.

freshfunk;841957571 said:

---

I think you're scrutinizing my words more closely than I'm writing them.

---

Maybe you should think first before you post.